Concerning Avatars

[Flightfreak]

To use Jasmines example:




Jasmine I don't know what program you used but when i resized your 100pix to 80pix it did not look that crappy.

Anyway, the size of the avatar does not change anything to the websites bandwidth, well it does, but Baz set a max. of kb for avatars (19.5 KB)
So its all relative. if they don't change the max size in kb for avatars but allow 100pix avatars then I don't see a problem.

[Hazzle]

That's true, but I think the suggestion was for a 5kb addition to the size limit because otherwise people would have to still reduce the quality of a 100x100 avatar to make it fit. And a 5kb addition to EVERY member would add up...

Hmmm...

(I always use photoshop to resize btw)

[Flightfreak]

using Jasmine her example again:
100x100pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:12kb
80x80pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:6kb

I don't think we need 5 kb more.

[acliff]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Let the avatar size like it is. Every site has other rules if it comes to avatar sizes. Maybe in an other month we will be having someone who is used to use a 120x120 pix avatar on an other forum. 80x80 is good. resizing an avatar takes how long? 1min

Adding the post count back would make people post more crap I think. because they want to have a higher post count or something. now you can check the amount of posts in the profile.

Post more crap?
So what exactly do we do most of the time?

In this time of interest, with pride and prejudice coming out, and domino due soon, having a post count would most certainly cause people to post more. I'm sure the people with high post counts would try and vye for the greatest posts, but we know the people at the top post total crap anyway.

I'd rather have more people posting, that we could moderate and lock, than have no new people in a stagnant, but highly viewed forum.

[Jasmine]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

To use Jasmines example:
Jasmine I don't know what program you used but when i resized your 100pix to 80pix it did not look that crappy.

Oh I know what happened with mine. In photoshop when I open the file itself and reize it, it resizes is crappy. But if I copy and paste it into a new window it resizes more smoothly...dont know why that is.

Anyways. As with that particular example, reizing doesnt affect it that much--only having spent a lot of my time and effort in making these, sacraficing some of the quality makes me feel like my work is being put to waste.

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

Anyway, the size of the avatar does not change anything to the websites bandwidth, well it does, but Baz set a max. of kb for avatars (19.5 KB) So its all relative. if they don't change the max size in kb for avatars but allow 100pix avatars then I don't see a problem.

Here's my question for the admins and whoever else: is it possible to raise the allowed demensions without raising the max kb?...or is that completely impossible?

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by Flightfreak

using Jasmine her example again:
100x100pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:12kb
80x80pix Jpg Quality -> 95% size:6kb

I don't think we need 5 kb more.

Err, that's a 6kb difference mate Unless you're suggesting we'd need a more than 5kb hike.

Originally Posted by acliff

Post more crap?
So what exactly do we do most of the time?

In this time of interest, with pride and prejudice coming out, and domino due soon, having a post count would most certainly cause people to post more. I'm sure the people with high post counts would try and vye for the greatest posts, but we know the people at the top post total crap anyway.

I'd rather have more people posting, that we could moderate and lock, than have no new people in a stagnant, but highly viewed forum.

He has a good point to be fair. Most posts these days seem to be from the established folk and very few from the new ones, and with P & P out there's bound to be the same hike in new members as there was when every other KK movie has come out. Better to have them posting, even if it ends up needing locks, than to just not have the posts there. For every 5 you might have to lock you might end up getting one really good thread that makes it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Jasmine

Here's my question for the admins and whoever else: is it possible to raise the allowed demensions without raising the max kb?...or is that completely impossible?

I believe so (although I'm not knowledgeable enough to say for certain) but as with Flightfreak when he resized your images, if you keep the quality the same, and just resize, then logically it will increase the size of the file. You could, however, reduce the quality when you save the file and deal with it that way.

[deviljet88]

It's possible... to have a large picture but have it compressed into a small kb file... it'd look bad though (blurry, fuzzy, pixellated, random stuff).

And go Cliff, w00t for top posters who post crap, myself included

[apoggy]

Originally Posted by Hazzle

Err, that's a 6kb difference mate Unless you're suggesting we'd need a more than 5kb hike.

He said a 5kb increase from the current maximum allowed which is 19.5kb, smart arse

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by apoggy

He said a 5kb increase from the current maximum allowed which is 19.5kb, smart arse

Damnit! So he did :icon_redf Fair point...

So that takes care of the bandwidth argument, the only thing left would be the argument that it'd ruin the look of the site...if that's the sole thing...why not do a poll to see how many people would actually take advantage of a 100x100 avatar? If it's a rough 50-50 split (or even more in favour of a 100x100 size), then do a trial phase and see how it looks. If, of course, most people would stay with 80x80, then all of this discussion is pointless anyway

[deviljet88]

What would be more pointless is if Baz decides to post a message such as: 80x80 is here to stay, stfu wankers.

People power sucks.

[Hazzle]

Yes, but he hasn't yet, so stfu

It's not really about people power so much as LJ > KKW in terms of membership and actually I'd say LJ is probably the biggest community on the web. As such, the standard 100x100 avatars they use have pretty much become a web standard, and we wouldn't want KKW to be considered behind the times now, would we? Plus if we can make the site more "accessible" to newbies then we wouldn't have to rely on cunts like you and me to post

[Flightfreak]

Originally Posted by hazzle

Damnit! So he did Fair point...

So that takes care of the bandwidth argument, the only thing left would be the argument that it'd ruin the look of the site...if that's the sole thing...why not do a poll to see how many people would actually take advantage of a 100x100 avatar? If it's a rough 50-50 split (or even more in favour of a 100x100 size), then do a trial phase and see how it looks. If, of course, most people would stay with 80x80, then all of this discussion is pointless anyway

It would not really take care of the bandwidth, it will raise a bit because if everyone changes to 100x100pix you’ll see that the size of the avatar folder will raise with 30% or something.
The amount of bandwidth that those avatars generate is pretty small. You also have to know that most of those avatars are in your computers internet cache and not get re-downloaded once you have it on your computer. Try to open kkwavefront.org offline and you'll see.

Anyway, thought I don’t really care about how big our avatars are I think that the amount of bandwidth that gets generated by it is minimal.

Originally Posted by acliff

Post more crap?
So what exactly do we do most of the time?

In this time of interest, with pride and prejudice coming out, and domino due soon, having a post count would most certainly cause people to post more. I'm sure the people with high post counts would try and vye for the greatest posts, but we know the people at the top post total crap anyway.

I'd rather have more people posting, that we could moderate and lock, than have no new people in a stagnant, but highly viewed forum.

People love drama,
you'll get more newbie’s post crap,
Baz will get more page views and earn more money.
And I an probably a few others won't be bothering anymore to read threads because its "too" full of crappy posts.
But if the moderators moderate enough and cause a lot of “drama� than it will be funny to read I suppose

[acliff]

I love drama.
And I'm assuming the 200kb gallery files are probably more of a bandwidth hog...

[Digital_Ice]

just a thought, but if you want to save the bandwidth cap, why not disable attachments, and make all people who want to post images link to offsite images, then the download is comming from their server not yours. There's many good, free image hosts for people to use if they dont have the luxury of their own server.

with regards to post counts... jesus christ no! we'll just have jet spamming up the place (more so) becuase of this strange assumptions "n00bs" have on the internet, that a high post count somehow boosts their status and importance, when all it actually does is draw attention to how much shite they post.

on a basic level, i agree with poggs, leave it alone, it works doesn't it. quit ya bitching!

[deviljet88]

No shite = No forum.

Slight overstatement, but.

[CollisionStar]

Perhaps this is a dead topic, I dunno...but I'm posting anyway....

Um, I kind of would like to have 100x100 because, well, it is easier to find and such, but I don't mind if not. Mostly, I was wondering if someone could resize some icons for me since I can't do that on my computer...?

Thanks. Maybe.

[Digital_Ice]

woah, thread bump.

well in short, im pretty sure it aint happening, and quite frankly i couln't care. when people start worrying about avatar sizes over the actuall posts it makes you wonder why the hell they're on a forum anyway, if you want to see big pictures, go on a gallery... anyways, stick the images up and i'll resise em to whatever you want.

[barrington]

80x80 stays. Thanks for playing.

[Hazzle]

The Bazzle hath spoken. And what about post counts?

[barrington]

There are no post counts.